Surely as its a free market, the high wages attract the best people. If you were truly good enough to earn £50k a year, you would be able to get a job paying it.

A fact lost on the "politics of envy" brigade that seem to think levelling down is best.

Remember those who are earning £50k a year driving trains are probably paying most of that in tax to the nanny state UK government. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them simply go elsewhere and drive trains in Switzerland or Hong Kong.

Whilst personally I thought he was simply a Union dinasaur, a throwback to the failed cummunist era, he was to his members very good value for his £145k Union salary. And if that was what he trousered, he was perfectly entitled to spend it how he likes, be it on bottles of champagne or expensive foreign cruises. Don't we all like a break in the sun during the dismal winter months here in the UK?

The former London mayor Ken Livingstone, who you would think would be a natural political ally, had accused him of running a protection racket rather than a trade union. I suspect there are many who have to use the Underground would heartily agree with him.

His response, when asked why given his salary, he did not buy his own house says it all about this guy's mindset. He choose to reside in a subsidised Housing Association property, thus denying a lower wage earner family, (who could possibly be members of his Union), the chance of a decent home, on the pretence that as he was born in a council house, he would die in one. He did not feel he had a moral duty to move out, and "Where, complained our chubby Comrade, is it written that Council Housing is only for the poor?"

Up the Workers? More like Right up the Workers, eh Bob?

[i‘This trade union fights for the right of our members to enjoy the finer things in life. Why should it just be the bankers, politicians and the idle rich who get all the best things? As a militant trade union we demand a standard of living for our members that enables them to share in the fine wines and fine times that the likes of David Cameron and his Old Etonian mates take for granted.’ [/i-Bob Crowe

Its the oldest trick in the right-wing book (and god knows how it fools people) is to pretend that if you want to demand a greater share for a greater number of people, you should be living in absolute poverty otherwise you are a ‘champagne socialist’.

I may think that someone hoarding billions in offshore tax havens is wrong. It doesn’t make me a hypocrite to have a holiday.

Subsidised by whom?

Where does it state that only the poor can live in council housing?

Bob Crow felt he had a moral duty to fight to increase council housing stock, to make truly affordable housing available to all, paying rents that reflected the true cost of the housing, not some "market value" that has been uprated out of all sensible proportion by government meddling in that self-same market.

Any comment on the huge subsidies being paid to private landlords? No? Thought not

A sad loss to the union movement. We could do with more like him.

If Crow had bought himself a big house the likes of The Daily Mail would have run a "Union leader lives 1n £1/2 million house!" story.

As I said on numerous ocassions I have no issues with a socialist earning £1m as long as they don't spout fairness from such a lofty position - hypocritical IMO.

We go back to McClusky - borderline communist if you listen to him sat in his comfy office with final salary scheme, health care etc funded by members who are sadly not party to such benefits spouting fairness and 'we are all in it together'.

I know you have mentioned this absolute nonsense on numerous occasions but all that does in confirm your ignorance of what hypocrisy means. It is the[i pretence[/i to have [ibeliefs[/i that they don't actually posses. Just because someone has a well paid job doesn't mean their beliefs are a pretence.

It is not and never has been hypocritical for those in lofty positions to campaign for reform and fairness. What a completely moronic stance to take to suggest it is.

It is market forces as you have so nicely illustrated. They have leverage and used it. It would be hypocritical of those on the right to be nothing other than pleased to see the market in action. After all there are cries of "jealousy" if anyone suggests a curb on executive pay.

Those on the right can't have it both ways.



Still conductors on the [itrain [/iI will use on Saturday to Manchester. I'd like to see them return on buses as well at least on urban services as that would reduce congestion in towns and stop the situation where a gaggle of buses are all parked up for ages while the driver takes the fares. Be interesting to know how many more passengers could be carried and how much less pollution there would be if buses moved off quickly rather than sat there belching out diesel fumes.

Progress eh?

Good job. People like Bill Gates would be royally f***ed if it was.

Exactly, just like your average Labour voter. Particularly those who bitch and whine about NHS privatisation, ATOS, cuts, rich donors etc etc.

So you think the average labour voter is favour of NHS privatisation, ATOS, CUTS, and rich donors?

Yes – this is precisely the bølløcks you keep coming out with.

And in which case, you were asked what pay a "real socialist" should receive in order to be allowed to comment on unfairness etc without you getting your dander up. You have not done so.



And this is more of your usual bølløcks, showing – yet again – that you don't know the first thing about hypocrisy. You claim that, at a certain financial point (never stated) it become hypocritical to comment on societal unfairness. Yet you think that an organisation should act in direct contravention of what it has as its aims – and don't understand that that would be hypocritical.



That was not the point. Sal has claimed that, at certain levels of pay, one becomes a hypocrite if one comments on unfairness in society etc. It was pointed out to him (not by me) that this logic means that no non-slave should have campaigned against slavery, but he continues to peddle it. And he has repeatedly refused to explain what level of remuneration one should be allowed if one is still allowed to comment on these matters without upsetting him.

I suspect that, when people in general comment negatively about "high earners" (and such people are hardly limited to any one political side), they're not talking about £90k (plus pension and employer's NI contributions, which is the reality of the headline figure on Crow's 'wage'), but about people getting millions – in many cases, in situations where other employees in the same company/organisation have had their pay driven down, or where they have done nothing to earn massive bonuses (see the recent case involving the Co-operative Bank).

They must be, otherwise they would have voted for a party who didn't have these things as the bedrock of their policies or "ideology".

If you really believe matters are a simplistic as that, I'm afraid that you're showing your ignorance.